UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 to Severinsky et al.
`
`IPR Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`
`
`______________
`
`
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY W. DAVIS IN
`SUPPORT OF REPLY BRIEF TO INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,104,347
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAICE LLC & ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 to Severinsky et al.
`
`IPR Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`
`
`______________
`
`
`
`
`REPLY DECLARATION OF DR. GREGORY W. DAVIS IN
`SUPPORT OF REPLY BRIEF TO INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,104,347
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2
`
`
`Updated Exhibit List
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
`’347 Patent File History
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970
`U.S. Patent No. 5,586,613
`Declaration of Gregory Davis
`Plaintiff Paice LLC’s Reply Claim
`Construction Brief (Case No. 2:04-
`cv-00211
`Plaintiff Paice LLC’s Claim
`Construction Brief (Case No. 2:04-
`cv-00211)
`Claim Construction Order (Case
`No. 2:04-cv-00211)
`Plaintiff Paice LLC’s Opening
`Claim Construction Brief (Case No.
`2:07-cv-00180)
`Plaintiff Paice LLC’s Reply Brief on
`Claim Construction (Case No. 2:07-
`cv-00180)
`Claim Construction Order (Case
`No. 2:07-cv-00180)
`Plaintiff Paice LLC and Abell
`Foundation, Inc.’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief (Case No. 1:12-
`cv-00499)
`Plaintiff Paice LLC and Abell
`Foundation, Inc.’s Responsive Brief
`on Claim Construction (Case No.
`1:12-cv-00499)
`U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`January 3, 2014 Decision (Appeal
`No. 2011-004811)
`Curriculum Vitae of Gregory Davis
`Innovations in Design: 1993 Ford
`Hybrid Electric Vehicle Challenge
`
`Date
`
`n/a
`n/a
`
`Sept. 6, 1994
`Dec. 24, 1996
`n/a
`Mar. 8, 2005
`
`Identifier
`The ’347 Patent
`’347 Patent File
`History
`Severinsky ’970
`Ehsani
`Davis
`n/a
`
`Mar. 29, 2005
`
`n/a
`
`Sept. 28, 2005
`
`n/a
`
`June 25, 2008
`
`n/a
`
`Aug. 1, 2008
`
`n/a
`
`Dec. 5, 2008
`
`n/a
`
`Nov. 14, 2013
`
`n/a
`
`Dec. 16, 2013
`
`n/a
`
`Jan. 3, 2014
`
`n/a
`
`
`Feb. 1994
`
`Declaration Ex.
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`1032
`
`1033
`1034
`
`1035
`
`Description
`1996 Future Car Challenge
`1997 Future Car Challenge
`History of the Electric Automobile
`– Hybrid Electric Vehicles
`Hybrid Vehicle for Fuel Economy
`Hybrid/Electric Vehicle Design
`Options and Evaluations
`Challenges for the Vehicle Tester in
`Characterizing Hybrid Electric
`Vehicles
`Electric and Hybrid Vehicles
`Program
`Technology for Electric and Hybrid
`Vehicles
`Strategies in Electric and Hybrid
`Vehicle Design
`Hybrid Vehicle Potential
`Assessment
`Final Report Hybrid Heat Engine /
`Electric Systems Study
`Transactions of the Institute of
`Measurements and Control: A
`microprocessor controlled gearbox
`for use in electric and hybrid-
`electric vehicles
`Propulsion System Design of
`Electric Vehicles
`Propulsion System Design of
`Electric and Hybrid Vehicles
`Bosch Handbook
`Design Innovations in Electric and
`Hybrid Electric Vehicles
`U.S. Patent No. 6,209,672
`Introduction to Automotive
`Powertrains (Davis Textbook)
`Yamaguchi article: Toyota Prius,
`Automotive Engineering
`International
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2
`
`
`Date
`Feb. 1997
`Feb. 1998
`1998
`
`Identifier
`Declaration Ex.
`Declaration Ex.
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Feb. 24-28, 1992 Declaration Ex.
`
`April 9-11, 1997 Declaration Ex.
`
`April 1995
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Feb. 1998
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Feb. 1996
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Sept. 30, 1979
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`June 1, 1971
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Sept. 1, 1988
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`1996
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Feb. 1997
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Oct. 1996
`Feb. 1995
`
`Declaration Ex.
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Apr. 3, 2001
`
`
`Declaration Ex.
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Jan. 1998
`
`Declaration Ex.
`
`Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2
`
`
`Date
`Description
`60/100,095 Provisional Application Filed Sept. 11,
`1998
`Feb. 29, 2012
`
`Identifier
`Declaration Ex.
`
`n/a
`
`Amendment in File History of U.S.
`Patent 8,214,097
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Gregory
`Davis
`Deposition Transcript of Mr.
`Hannemann IPR2014-00571
`
`
`
`Reply Dec.
`
`4/7/2015
`
`Hannemann
`Depo.
`
`
`
`Deposition Transcript of Mr.
`Hannemann IPR2014-00579
`
`4/7/2015 –
`4/8/2015
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2
`
`
`I, Gregory Davis, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I previously submitted a declaration on April 4, 2014 at the request of
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Ford Motor Company in the matter of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,104,347 (“the ’347 Patent”) to Severinsky et al. (Ex. 1005.)
`
`3.
`
`I provide the current Reply Declaration in response to arguments
`
`presented by the Patent Owner.
`
`4.
`
`Again, it is my opinion that Severinsky 970 looks at the torque required
`
`to propel the vehicle in order to determine when to employ the engine. (Ex. 1005 at
`
`¶¶241-255, 276-292.)
`
`5.
`
`First, Severinsky ‘970 discloses that the microprocessor continually
`
`monitors and discloses using operator input to indicate a change in power to be
`
`applied to the wheels. A person having ordinary skill in the art understands torque is
`
`related to power by speed (i.e., power = torque * speed). Thus, the operator’s input
`
`indicating a change in power is related to the torque that should be applied to the
`
`wheels.
`
`The operator input devices 70 may include accelerator and brake
`
`pedals, directional control switches, and the like. Pressure on the
`
`accelerator pedal indicates to the microprocessor that more power
`
`is required; pressure on the brake causes the microprocessor to initiate
`
`regenerative braking, as discussed below . . . [I]n general it is an object of
`
`the invention to provide a hybrid vehicle that is “user-transparent”, that
`
`Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
`
`is, requiring no more operator knowledge or training than does a
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2
`
`
`conventional automobile.
`
`(Ex. 1003 at 13:16-29.)
`
`6.
`
`In fact, Severinsky ’970 discloses the importance of receiving operator
`
`input from the pedal operation.
`
`As the driver's input is an integral element of the system, the driver
`
`can make any fine adjustments required simply by varying the pressure
`
`exerted on the control input devices 70.
`
`(Ex. 1003 at 13:10-13, emphasis added.)
`
`7.
`
`Severinsky ’970 also illustrates that the accelerator pedal or brake pedal
`
`are inputs to, and used by, the micro-controller as an indication of operator
`
`commands of acceleration and deceleration that may be used to determine the load
`
`demand of the vehicle. (see Ex. 1003 at 10:25-43). This is also illustrated in Fig. 3,
`
`annotated below.
`
`Ex. 1003, Severinsky ’970, Fig. 3, annotated
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2
`
`As such, it is my opinion that the torque required to propel the vehicle is
`
`8.
`
`influenced by how much the driver desires to propel or decelerate the vehicle through
`
`use of the pedals. Further, the driver’s operation also correlates to the torque required
`
`to propel the vehicle. For instance, Severinsky ’970 discloses that at low torque
`
`propulsion requirements below the setpoint, that the motor alone is used to propel the
`
`vehicle.
`
`FIG. 4 illustrates operation in low speed circumstances, e.g., in city
`
`traffic or reversing. As noted, the parallel hybrid vehicle drive system
`
`according to the present invention includes an electric motor 20
`
`powered by energy stored in a relatively large, high voltage battery pack
`
`22. Energy flows from battery 22 to motor 20 as indicated by a dot-dash
`
`line shown at 24. The electric motor 20 provides torque, shown as a
`
`dashed line 25, transmitted from the motor output shaft 26 through a
`
`torque transfer unit 28 and a drive shaft 30 to a conventional differential
`
`32 and then to wheels 34 of the vehicle. Thus FIG. 4 indicates that the
`
`flow of energy in heavy traffic or for reversing is simply from battery 22
`
`to electric motor 20; torque flows from the motor 20 to the wheels 34.
`
`Under these circumstances, electric motor 20 provides all of the
`
`torque needed to move the vehicle. Other combinations of torque
`
`and energy flow required under other circumstances are detailed below
`
`in connection with FIGS. 5-9. For example, if the operator continues
`
`to command acceleration, an acceleration/hill climbing mode
`
`illustrated in FIG. 6 may be entered, followed by a highway
`
`cruising mode illustrated in FIG. 5.
`
`(Ex. 1003, at 10:52-11:6, emphasis added.)
`
`Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2
`
`And as further emphasized above, Severinsky ‘970 discloses that the
`
`9.
`
`vehicle could transition from operation by the motor only (engine off) to operation by
`
`the engine and motor combined (engine on) due to (1) the operator’s command for
`
`the vehicle to accelerate; or (2) the vehicle transitioning from a level road surface to
`
`ascending up a hill. Indeed, Severinsky ’970 discloses going from a situation where the
`
`motor provides all the torque for propelling the vehicle (i.e., engine off) to a
`
`“acceleration/hill climbing mode” where the engine is started and employed together
`
`with the motor for propelling the vehicle. Such operation would have been
`
`understood by a person having ordinary skill as being done based on the torque
`
`required for propelling the vehicle and not speed alone as Patent Owner alleges.
`
`10.
`
`For instance, a person having ordinary skill would understand that a
`
`vehicle may be stopped at a red light. When the light turns green, the operator may
`
`request the vehicle (through operation of the accelerator pedal) to accelerate
`
`aggressively. In other words, the driver may fully depress down on the accelerator
`
`pedal. At the instantaneous moment where the driver requests full acceleration of the
`
`vehicle there are no changes in the external forces acting on the vehicle because the
`
`vehicle has not yet begun to respond. In other words, because the vehicle has not yet
`
`begun to respond the aero forces due to drag or resistive forces needed to accelerate
`
`the vehicle from rest have not yet changed. The vehicle, however, must determine
`
`how to respond to the full acceleration request. As Severinsky ‘970 discloses, this full
`
`acceleration request would result in the “acceleration mode” starting and employing
`
`Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2
`
`both the engine and motor to propel the vehicle. Such operation would be a result of
`
`a dramatic increase in the instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle. This
`
`operating situation would illustrate a situation where engine would be started and
`
`employed because the torque required to propel the vehicle to meet the desired
`
`acceleration has increased.
`
`11. And as I have previously opined, “hill climbing” is another scenario that
`
`Severinsky 970 discloses which a person having ordinary skill would understand may
`
`require the vehicle transition operating modes. For instance, when a vehicle is going
`
`down a hill the torque required for propulsion of the vehicle could be negative.
`
`As the vehicle descends down a hill, if the driver does nothing, the weight of the
`
`vehicle will cause the vehicle to accelerate due to gravity. Such an acceleration is due
`
`to the negative external forces caused by a steep incline. In other words, the external
`
`forces acting on the vehicle may cause the vehicle to accelerate. Therefore, the torque
`
`required for propulsion of the vehicle could become negative when the vehicle is
`
`going down a hill. If the torque becomes negative, the driver may need to press the
`
`brake pedal to keep from accelerating.
`
`12. Conversely, when the vehicle is going up the hill, or when the driver
`
`requests the vehicle accelerate, it is understood that the torque required for
`
`propulsion of the vehicle may be positive. Again, when the vehicle ascends the
`
`hill, if the driver does nothing, the increase in external force will cause the vehicle to
`
`decelerate due to gravity. Therefore, the torque required for propulsion of the vehicle
`
`Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2
`
`is positive when the vehicle is traveling up a hill. To propel the vehicle, the driver
`
`needs to press down on the accelerator pedal to either maintain the same speed or to
`
`accelerate up the hill. Likewise, anyone who has ever wanted to pass a vehicle
`
`understands that in order for the vehicle to accelerate, the driver must press the
`
`accelerator pedal to accelerate past the other vehicle. Such acceleration also requires
`
`an increase in torque to propel the vehicle.
`
`13.
`
`It is also my opinion that the increase in the torque required to propel
`
`the vehicle during acceleration/hill climbing may occur regardless of vehicle speed.
`
`For instance, the vehicle may be traveling along a flat road at low speeds and the
`
`torque required to propel the vehicle would be relatively low. However, the driver
`
`may command acceleration or the vehicle may begin ascending a hill and the torque
`
`required for propulsion of the vehicle would increase.
`
`14.
`
`I also understand that the Patent Owner has argued that Severinsky ’970
`
`determines when to employ the engine based on speed alone. I disagree with Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments for as I stated above, Severinsky ‘970 teaches starting and
`
`employing the engine based on torque—such as illustrated by the “acceleration/hill
`
`climb mode.” Again, climbing a hill could be done at a fixed vehicle speed, but the
`
`increased torque required for propulsion would cause the control to enter the
`
`“acceleration/hill climb mode.”
`
`15. Both the ’970 and ‘347 patents describe the motor only mode as a “low
`
`speed” mode because, unless the vehicle driver is commanding heavy acceleration or
`
`Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2
`
`the vehicle is going uphill, the torque required at low speeds is typically low. This
`
`“low speed” designation is simply used to describe typical or average torque
`
`requirements experienced by a vehicle when travelling at low speeds.
`
`16. And as I have previously discussed, Severinsky ’970 confirms this as it
`
`describes an “acceleration/hill climbing mode” in which the torque of both the
`
`engine and the motor are used to propel the vehicle. This “acceleration/hill
`
`climbing mode” is clearly torque/road-load-based because it is invoked by high
`
`torque/road load regardless of the speed and can arise at any speed.
`
`FIG. 4 illustrates operation in low speed circumstances, e.g., in city
`
`traffic or reversing. . . . Under these circumstances, electric motor 20
`
`provides all of the torque needed to move the vehicle.
`
`* * *
`
`[S]aid modes include . . . a low speed/reversing mode, wherein all
`
`energy is supplied by said battery and all torque by said electric motor;
`
`* * *
`
`[D]uring said low speed running mode of operation, said flow paths
`
`are controlled such that electrical energy flows from said battery to said
`
`electric motor, and torque flows from said electric motor to said
`
`torque transfer unit and thence to said drive wheels.
`
`(Ex. 1003, Severinsky ’970 at 10:52-68, 22:42-44, 25:14-19, emphasis added.)
`
`17. The ‘347 Patent likewise describes motor mode as “low-speed operation,
`
`such as in city traffic” and engine mode as “highway cruising.” (Ex. 1001, ‘347 Patent
`
`at 35:66-36:3 and 36:27-33.) Again, unless the vehicle is being accelerated or is going
`
`Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2
`
`uphill, the torque required in these situations is related to speed and that higher
`
`speeds generally require higher torques.
`
`For example, during
`
`low-speed operation, the clutch will be
`
`disengaged, so that the engine is disconnected from the wheels; the
`
`vehicle is then operated as a "straight" electric car. . . .
`
`* * *
`
`Thus, as indicated above, when microprocessor 48 detects a continued
`
`operator requirement for additional power, such as during transition
`
`from slow-speed to highway operation or by measuring the rate at
`
`which the operator depresses accelerator pedal 69, engine 40 is started
`
`using starter motor 21. . . .
`
`* * *
`
`As noted, during low-speed operation, such as in city traffic, the
`
`vehicle is operated as a simple electric car, where all torque is
`
`provided to road wheels 34 by traction motor 25 operating on
`
`electrical energy supplied from battery bank 22. This is referred to as
`
`"mode I" operation. . . .
`
`* * *
`
`While operating at low speeds, e.g., when the vehicle’s torque
`
`requirements ("road load", or "RL") are less than 30% of the engine’s
`
`maximum torque output ("MTO"), engine 40 is run only as needed to
`
`charge battery bank 22.
`
`* * *
`
`Therefore, when a sensed increase in the road load 25 (e.g., by a
`
`continued operator request for more power) indicates that the
`
`preferred operating mode is changing from low-speed to highway
`
`Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2
`
`
`cruising operation, the microprocessor controls starting motor 21 by
`
`way of inverter/charger 23 to start engine 40.
`
`* * *
`
`For example, in the example of the inventive control strategy discussed
`
`above, it is repeatedly stated that the transition from low-speed
`
`operation to highway cruising occurs when road load is equal to
`
`30% of MTO.
`
`* * *
`
`FIG. 9 thus shows the main decision points of the control program run
`
`by the microprocessor, with the transition point between mode I, low-
`
`speed operation, and mode IV highway cruising, set at a road load
`
`equal to 30% of MTO.
`
`* * *
`
`In the above discussion of FIG. 9, it was assumed that the transition
`
`point between low-speed and highway operation is set so that the
`
`transition occurs when the road load is equal to 30% of MTO under
`
`all circumstances. However, as discussed above, it may be desirable to
`
`operate the system so that the vehicle goes from the low-speed mode I
`
`to the highway-cruising mode IV at a higher road load, e.g., 50% of
`
`MTO, than the road load at which the low-speed mode is reentered,
`
`e.g., when road load in mode IV falls to below 20%.
`
`* * *
`
`Finally, the controller is provided with software to implement the
`
`control scheme described in detail above, that is, to use the traction
`
`motor as the only source of drive torque at low speed. . . .
`
`
`(Exhibit 1001, ’347 Patent at 18:5-8, 29:65-30:5, 35:65-36:3, 36:8-11, 36:27-32, 40:46-
`
`Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2
`
`
`50, 41:66-42:2, 43:35-44, 50:11-15, emphasis added.)
`
`18.
`
`It is also my understanding that the Patent Owner has argued that
`
`Severinsky 970’s disclosure of a hysteresis time delay (provided below) is an indication
`
`that mode operational decisions are based on speed alone.
`
`At moderate speeds, as experienced in suburban driving, the speed of
`
`the vehicle on average is between 30-45 mph. The vehicle will operate
`
`in a highway mode with the engine running constantly after the
`
`vehicle reaches a speed of 30-35 mph. The engine will continue to
`
`run unless the engine speed is reduced to 20-25 mph for a period
`
`of time, typically 2-3 minutes. This speed-responsive hysteresis in
`
`mode switching will eliminate nuisance engine starts.
`
`(Ex. 1003 at 18:34-42, emphasis added.)
`
`19.
`
`It is my opinion, however, that this reference to speed does not negate
`
`the fact that Severinsky ’970 describes torque/road-load-based control. This
`
`paragraph concerns “moderate speeds” and “suburban driving,” which will generally
`
`involve low to moderate loads unless there is significant acceleration or hill climbing.
`
`And Severinsky ’970 has a separate mode for that as I have described above. Even if
`
`Severinsky ’970 was considering speed in this particular situation, it is generally, if not
`
`always, using torque/road load in its mode decisions for the reasons I have already
`
`described.
`
`20.
`
`It is also clear from this disclosure that Severinsky ’970 discloses delaying
`
`the turning on the motor and turning off the engine only after the vehicle loads are
`
`Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2
`
`below a threshold for a certain period of time - and thereafter operating the at least one
`
`electric motor to propel the hybrid vehicle.
`
`21. Also, it is my understanding that Mr. Hannemann has argued that a
`
`person having ordinary skill would not understand that the engine would turn on
`
`under its most efficient “conditions of output power and speed”-i.e., 60-90%. (Ex.
`
`1003 at 7:9-10; Ex. 2002 at 61-64.) Mr. Hannemann specifically argues that my
`
`original opinion would create “a circular algorithm” where the engine is to be turned
`
`on or off based on the engine’s own output torque. (Ex. 2002 at 64.)
`
`22. When the engine is off, for instance when the vehicle is at a stop light,
`
`the engine torque is zero. Now Mr. Hannemann opines that because the engine
`
`torque is zero during this stopped position, it was my original opinion that the engine
`
`will never turn on – regardless of how the vehicle operates. (Ex. 2002 at 64.)
`
`23. My opinion did not state that the control strategy look at the output
`
`torque of the engine to determine when it surpasses 60% of its own torque. Such an
`
`argument is confusing and misinterprets my original opinion and testimony.
`
`24. As I have explained above, when the light turns green, the operator may
`
`request the vehicle (through operation of the accelerator pedal) to accelerate
`
`aggressively. In other words, the driver may fully depress down on the accelerator
`
`pedal. At the instantaneous moment where the driver requests full acceleration of the
`
`vehicle there are no changes in the external forces acting on the vehicle because the
`
`vehicle has not yet begun to respond. In other words, because the vehicle has not yet
`
`Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2
`
`begun to respond the aero forces due to drag or resistive forces needed to accelerate
`
`the vehicle from rest have not yet changed. The vehicle, however, must determine
`
`how to respond to the full acceleration request. As Severinsky ‘970 discloses, this full
`
`acceleration request would result in the “acceleration mode” starting and employing
`
`both the engine and motor to propel the vehicle. Such operation would be a result of
`
`a dramatic increase in the instantaneous torque required to propel the vehicle.
`
`25. The operating situation I have described illustrates a situation where the
`
`engine would be started and employed to propel the vehicle because the torque
`
`required to propel the vehicle to meet the desired acceleration has increased above
`
`the 60% lower threshold. Again, Severinsky ‘970 identifies 60% as being the setpoint
`
`when the engine should be employed.
`
`It will be appreciated that according to the invention the internal
`
`combustion engine is run only in the near vicinity of its most efficient
`
`operational point, that is, such that it produces 60-90% of its maximum
`
`torque whenever operated.
`
`(Ex. 1003 at 20:63-67.)
`
`When the engine can be used efficiently [“such that it produces 60-90%
`
`of its maximum torque”] to drive the vehicle forward, e.g. in highway
`
`cruising, it is so employed.”
`
`(Ex. 1003 at 7:11-13.)
`
`26. Therefore, my opinion did not say look at the output torque of the
`
`engine for determining when to turn on the engine. Instead, my opinion stated that
`
`Page 16 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00571
`Attorney Docket No.: FPGP0101IPR2
`
`Severinsky ‘970 discloses a control strategy that determines when the torque
`
`required to propel the vehicle surpasses a point where the engine could be
`
`producing 60% of its maximum torque. If the required torque of the vehicle is above
`
`where the engine could provide 60% of its maximum torque, it is started and
`
`employed. If however, the required torque of the vehicle is below where the engine
`
`could provide 60% of its maximum torque, the engine is turned off and the electric
`
`motor is used to propel the vehicle.
`
`
`
`Executed on: April 22, 2015
`
`
`
`___________________________
`Gregory W. Davis, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Page 17 of 17
`
`
`
`
`FORD 1038
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
